[enjo]

That's the whole point of the article tho isn't? Terms matter.

Terms similar to those do exist btw. Investors who aren't going to be able to wrangle board control often attempt to control their money using absurd up-front strategic requirements.

You are correct. Taking that money is a massive mistake, but founders often do it to protect from bottom-line dilution. After all you can often negotiate a better valuation by taking worse terms on the deal.

I've seen it up close and personal, the cautionary tale in the post is a good one. Valuation is important, but you really have to understand the terms you're entering into.

A mentor described it to me as "always be steering for an optimal outcome for partial success". In other words if I'm valued at $10M today, then I want to make sure I'm going to do OK if we end up selling for $20M, as opposed to getting the best possible outcome at $100M. Ya I might leave a bunch of money on the table in the end, but in the ~$100M case I'm going to be really happy no matter what.